[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 133 (Wednesday, August 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11979-S11980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S11979]]


            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent the underlying 
committee amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2303

   (Purpose: To amend section 1864 of title 18, United States Code, 
   relating to tree spiking, to add avoidance costs as a punishable 
                                result)

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2303.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   .
       Section 1864 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``twenty'' and inserting 
     ``40'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``ten'' and inserting 
     ``20'';
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``if damage exceeding 
     $10,000 to the property of any individual results,'' and 
     inserting ``if damage to the property of any individual 
     results or if avoidance costs have been incurred exceeding 
     $10,000, in the aggregate,''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``ten'' and inserting 
     ``20'';
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``ten'' and inserting 
     ``20'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by--
       (A) striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the term `avoidance costs' means costs incurred by 
     any individual for the purpose of--
       ``(A) detecting a hazardous or injurious device; or
       ``(B) preventing death, serious bodily injury, bodily 
     injury, or property damage likely to result from the use of a 
     hazardous or injurious device in violation of subsection 
     (a).''; and
       (4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(e) Any person injured as the result of a violation of 
     subsection (a) may commence a civil action on his own behalf 
     against any person who is alleged to be in violation of 
     subsection (a). The district courts shall have jurisdiction, 
     without regard to the amount in controversy or the 
     citizenship of the parties, in such civil actions. The court 
     may award, in addition to monetary damages for any injury 
     resulting from an alleged violation of subsection (a), costs 
     of litigation, including reasonable attorney and expert 
     witness fees, to any prevailing or substantially prevailing 
     party, whenever the court determines such award is 
     appropriate.''.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the amendment I send to the desk today for 
the Senate's consideration is one that is the result of what I think 
can best be known as ecoterrorism and the reaction that this Congress 
and this Senate some years ago had to that very problem. The issue is 
known as tree spiking.
  Mr. President, for some years individuals and interest groups that 
have opposed the legitimate, lawful timber sales on our public lands 
have oftentimes actually gone onto the land and into the trees and 
spiked them, sometimes with metal spikes, hoping that the sawyer who 
went in to cut the tree would hit it with his saw blade and stop. And 
in some instances the chains came loose from those saws and killed or 
maimed the individual sawyer. That happens to be a Federal property, a 
Federal tree.
  Now they are using porcelain spikes because, of course, metal spikes 
could be detected by a metal detector. They use porcelain spikes. They 
cannot be detected. Either the sawyer hits the spike or as the tree got 
to the mill and as the tree went through the process of being cut, 
oftentimes the saw blade at the mill, the large band saw hit this 
porcelain spike and shattered and sent flying metal shrapnel all over 
the mill and has killed or maimed additional workers.
  So, some years ago, the Congress said that is every bit as much an 
act of terrorism as it would be to put a bomb in front of a Federal 
building. So, therefore, we passed laws requiring certain penalties as 
a result of that. That occurred in 1988. My predecessor, Jim McClure, 
had passed Public Law 100-690.
  What I do today is to close a loophole in that law that the courts 
argued existed as it related to the cumulative damages and the ability 
of the courts to prosecute an individual who was found guilty of tree 
spiking. The closure of the loophole in the current law, which caused 
the courts to throw it out, needs to happen. I am provoked into doing 
this because of recent reports in my State, again, by unnamed groups 
calling themselves fictitious names, announcing that they have spiked 
certain timber sales. Of course, their desire is to keep those timber 
sales from being sold by the U.S. Forest Service or it to be bid. As a 
result of that, that causes tremendous difficulty.
  In the last 10 years, there have been 44 incidents of tree spiking. 
There have been 21 cases of major machinery damage, and there has been 
the loss of a life. That is why we acted in 1988 as we did, and why I 
am asking the Senate today to close the loophole by including the 
threshold of $10,000 of preventive costs required to prosecute a case 
in Federal court. The difference is between actual cost and preventive 
cost, because the court said it was the costs of the loss of a piece of 
equipment or, in the case of the loss of a life, of course, that was a 
different issue.
  What happens is oftentimes the Forest Service--but especially private 
companies who have brought these sales--spend a lot of money trying to 
detect if these sales of trees have been spiked. And that costs 
considerably more than $10,000, but it could never be used as an 
accumulative cost in the court's deliberation.
  So my amendment allows these cumulative or preventive costs to be 
included in the threshold, and, of course, it also allows for the judge 
in his penalties greater flexibility in bringing the penalties down on 
the individual if the individuals are found guilty.
  I hope the Senate will join with me in agreeing that this is a 
Federal law that not only deserves to be preserved but deserves to be 
strengthened because those kinds of incidents still go on today, and 
they are every bit an act of terrorism whether they are the spike in 
the trees or the bomb in front of the Federal building. They are 
Federal properties and they can, and have, cost life.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to say the Senator from Idaho 
brings up an important point and one with a great deal of merit. If it 
was simply up to me, I would accept the amendment and go on. But I 
believe that we should recognize that it is clearly possible that this 
might be a contentious amendment and that there may be Members who 
disagree with the points made by the Senator from Idaho.
  So at this point, I would really like to put the Senate on notice 
that the amendment has been presented and ask that, if there are any 
objections to the amendment, they be communicated to either me or to 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  I hope that we can lay this amendment aside also and go on to 
something else until we find out whether or not anyone wants to debate 
against this amendment or to have a rollcall on it.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I do not want to impede progress here. I 
simply rise to give a thank you to our distinguished chairman, the 
manager of the bill. I want to thank the distinguished Senator for the 
approach he has taken to resolving a very, very complicated issue 
regarding Federal fish hatcheries.
  The State of Arkansas has developed the Federal fish hatchery system 
to the extent that trout fishing now in our State is one of the major 
businesses that we have. It brings hundreds of thousands of tourists, 
fisherpersons, into our State.
  We also have the unique situation of mitigation that arose when the 
Federal Government dammed up some very beautiful rivers and streams 
some time back. And the mitigation aspect is that, if the Government 
dams up those streams and basically makes unavailable other types of 
fish, they will make available a substitute--in this case, trout.
  It has worked out very well for the Federal Government. It has worked 
out exceptionally well for our State system. And we collect millions of 
dollars 

[[Page S11980]]
in taxes and revenues from this. It is a win-win for everyone.
  In recent months the Federal Government, the Department of the 
Interior, Fish and Wildlife, in an attempt to cut some costs have 
thought about closing some of these fish hatcheries. I know the 
distinguished occupant of the chair probably has some of the same 
problems that we have in the State of Arkansas.
  My colleague, Senator Bumpers, and I held a town meeting near one of 
these hatcheries. In fact, it was on April Fool's Day, April 1. Truly, 
we had an overflow crowd. I must say that 99 percent of the people who 
attended this town meeting on the possibility of closing these 
hatcheries were extremely bewildered that it was even under 
consideration to close these fish hatcheries. They are money-making 
operations for our State. They certainly create revenues for the 
Federal Government.
  Once again, Mr. President, I want to thank my friends for working out 
what we think is a temporary solution to the closing of the fish 
hatcheries by making available in this legislation what I consider to 
be a moratorium, at least until next March, on the closing of any fish 
hatcheries in our country.
  During that time, we will work with the distinguished chairman. We 
will do everything possible to negotiate and with our ultimate bottom 
line of convincing those in authority, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Members of the House and Senate on committees that appropriate the 
money for these fish hatcheries, to show them what a win-win situation 
this Federal fish hatchery program has been.
  I thank the distinguished Senator and look forward to working with 
him over the next several months.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas is most gracious 
and is the kind of Senator with whom it is a pleasure to work. He makes 
me want to agree with him.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 
7 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________